Finalist Selection Under Funding Pressure
An $8 billion corporate pension plan is searching for a high-yield bond manager to run a $400 million mandate. The plan is 84% funded and the investment committee wants to reduce risk. Two finalists remain. Manager A has a five-year annualized return of 7.8% versus the benchmark's 6.2%, but its track record at the current firm is only three years; the prior record was at a firm where the team managed a similar strategy. Portfolio turnover is 65%, and the portfolio holds 12% in CCC-rated bonds. Manager B has an eight-year record at the current firm, a 6.9% return, 40% turnover, and 6% in CCC bonds. Fees are 45 bps for A and 35 bps for B. The plan's consultant notes that Manager A's outperformance came largely from a single distressed issuer that has since been sold. The committee asks which manager to hire and what additional due diligence is needed.
1. How should the committee weigh Manager A's shorter current-firm track record and prior-firm performance?
Read the worked answer
Track record portability is not automatic. For the prior-firm record to be credited, the committee must confirm that the same decision-makers, same investment process, same research resources, and same risk controls moved to the boutique. The fact that the prior firm's compliance report lists different portfolio managers is a red flag: it suggests the named decision-makers may not have been solely responsible, or that the team was larger and has since changed. Under GIPS, a firm may present a prior-firm track record only if it has records to support it and control has not changed; the boutique should provide a GIPS-compliant presentation that clearly labels the prior-firm performance and explains the portability basis. The committee should not treat the 10-year record as if it were earned at the boutique. It should weight the three-year current-firm record more heavily, but three years is a short sample. Ask for a team history, key-person agreements, and verification of the prior composite.
2. Evaluate the two managers on return, risk, and fees, and recommend one.
Read the worked answer
On a net-of-fee basis, Manager A returned about 7.35% versus Manager B's 6.55%, an 80 bp advantage. But that advantage is not repeatable: the consultant says it came largely from one distressed issuer that has been sold. Manager A also carries more credit risk (12% CCC versus 6%) and much higher turnover (65% versus 40%), which implies more trading costs and less liquidity in a stress scenario. Manager B has an eight-year current-firm record, lower turnover, and a more consistent process. For a plan that is 84% funded and wants to reduce risk, the committee should prefer B unless A can demonstrate that its process-not one issuer-drove returns. If A is considered, require a full attribution showing the distressed issuer's contribution and a stress test of the CCC bucket. The fee difference is only 10 bps, so it should not drive the decision; risk and repeatability should.
3. What operational and portfolio-level due diligence questions should be asked before funding?
Read the worked answer
Operational due diligence should cover: team stability and compensation, succession planning, key-person risk, and whether the portfolio managers are owners; trading and best-execution practices, especially for CCC bonds; valuation policy for illiquid or distressed holdings and independent pricing sources; liquidity profile and expected time to liquidate the portfolio; capacity and asset growth; compliance history and regulatory actions; and client concentration. At the portfolio level, ask for stress tests under a 2008-style default wave, sector and issuer concentration, covenant quality, and the use of derivatives or leverage. Also request the GIPS composite presentation, the ADV, and references from former clients. For Manager A, specifically ask how much of the five-year return came from the sold distressed issuer and whether the team's prior-firm process is identical. These questions separate a repeatable process from a lucky outcome.